The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2017, 08:25am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
The only thing worse than not having a rating system for officials is having a rating system for officials.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2017, 08:36am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Here is our system and it is simple. We as officials control 4 categories for the most part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
How the Power Rating is Determined: The power rating is a number from 0 to 35, derived from 7 different criteria, as follows:

  1. Promotion level: (Officials Control) Certified (C) -- 5 pts., Recognized (R) -- 3 pts., Registered (X) -- 1 pt.
  2. Part 1 exam score: (Officials Control) 96 -- 5 pts., 92 -- 4 pts., 88 -- 3 pts., 84 -- 2 pts, 80 -- 1 pt.
  3. Previous tournament experience for contests by this gender: state final -- 5 pts., super-sectional or football semifinal -- 4 pts., sectional or football quarterfinal -- 3 pts., football second-round game -- 2 pts., regional or other football playoff game -- 1 pt.
  4. Contest ratings (percentile rank of all officials): 90% -- 5 pts., 80% -- 4 pts., 70% -- 3 pts., 60% -- 2 pts., 50% -- 1 pt.
  5. Top 15 lists (percentile rank of all officials): 90% -- 5 pts., 80% -- 4 pts., 70% -- 3 pts. 60% -- 2 pts., 50% -- 1 pt.
  6. Clinic attendance (most recent clinic): (Officials Control) this year -- 5 pts., last year -- 3 pts., two years ago -- 1 pt.
  7. Varsity games worked (percentage of games a school is allowed to play in the regular season in that sport): (Control most of this too) 70% -- 5 pts., 60% -- 4 pts., 50% -- 3 pts., 40% -- 2 pts., 30% -- 1 pt. See table below.
The percentiles for the Top 15 and Ratings used to be things determined by officials as well. Every official's association used to have a Top 15 list, but they took that away a few years ago. Each Certified officials used to also be able to rate officials for varsity contests, but now that is also no longer the case. But just about every category you could control. And there are many other things considered outside of the Power Rating that was considered. I had 35 points last year and did not work the State Finals. There is a policy to not work more than 2 years in a row and then you take a year off. Even if my rating was that high again, I will not likely get back to a State Final. Geography, years of experience, what kind of games you work can all be considered along with many other things. I think people worry too much about things they ultimately cannot control.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2017, 12:37pm
CJP CJP is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
I think a good way to chose post season officials is to do it while all stakeholders are sitting at the same table. AD's and coaches can all sit in the same room and pick from the pool of available officials. Coaches or AD's can nominate who they feel are the best and any objections should be discussed. The minutes of that meeting should be made available to the officials. Objections should be noted in detail so the official can use the feedback to get better.

I think doing it in a open forum will eliminate some of the politics.

Evaluations from coaches are not a bad thing but I would not allow them in the decision process to chose post season assignments. I would welcome feedback anyway I can get it.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2017, 03:54pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP View Post
I think a good way to chose post season officials is to do it while all stakeholders are sitting at the same table. AD's and coaches can all sit in the same room and pick from the pool of available officials. Coaches or AD's can nominate who they feel are the best and any objections should be discussed. The minutes of that meeting should be made available to the officials. Objections should be noted in detail so the official can use the feedback to get better.

I think doing it in a open forum will eliminate some of the politics.

Evaluations from coaches are not a bad thing but I would not allow them in the decision process to chose post season assignments. I would welcome feedback anyway I can get it.
I do not mind getting ratings from coaches, but not an evaluation. They know nothing or not enough about officiating as much as I or most of us would know little to nothing about actual coaching. We know coaches do not like officials for some silly reason or for following the rules, so why would I want to know what a coach thinks of me that I have little or no respect for?

And your suggestion would still be political. It would make people realize who does not like them either way and likely be seen as held against one or the other. Then if we had a coach that was on the record not valuing our ability, then anything we did with them moving forward would be held against us even if we did not really care or pay attention. There is a reason politicians have closed-door meetings about policy. The public knowing how the sausage is made only would cause a problem in many cases for the person making the comments or the result to be accepted.

Ratings are fine but do not tell me that a coach knows when I should rotate or who actually should have made a call or not. They often think we are all looking at the same play when we clearly are not.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 20, 2017, 04:39pm
CJP CJP is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I do not mind getting ratings from coaches, but not an evaluation. They know nothing or not enough about officiating as much as I or most of us would know little to nothing about actual coaching. We know coaches do not like officials for some silly reason or for following the rules, so why would I want to know what a coach thinks of me that I have little or no respect for?

And your suggestion would still be political. It would make people realize who does not like them either way and likely be seen as held against one or the other. Then if we had a coach that was on the record not valuing our ability, then anything we did with them moving forward would be held against us even if we did not really care or pay attention. There is a reason politicians have closed-door meetings about policy. The public knowing how the sausage is made only would cause a problem in many cases for the person making the comments or the result to be accepted.

Ratings are fine but do not tell me that a coach knows when I should rotate or who actually should have made a call or not. They often think we are all looking at the same play when we clearly are not.

Peace
I think good officials are appreciated by terrible coaches in most cases.

I didn't say it would eliminate politics. I feel it would eliminate some of the politics but not all of it. The open meeting would hopefully detour a coach or AD from being unfair.

I never said it should be a mandatory thing or part of a selection process but I would appreciate certain feedback from coaches if done in a proper way. For example, did I show a high level of decisiveness? Did I communicate with participants effectively? Did I maintain professional control during the contest? Was I aggressive or overbearing?

Evaluations regarding my application and understanding of the rules should maybe be left up to our peers.

It was just a thought. But anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 21, 2017, 10:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17
Politics

Don't worry about a vote, may be we should vote on if a coach should be in post season! The better officials may not be available or can't get off from their jobs. It is a nice honor if done the correct way. Some times it is just plain ole' politics!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 21, 2017, 11:07pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP View Post
I think good officials are appreciated by terrible coaches in most cases.

I didn't say it would eliminate politics. I feel it would eliminate some of the politics but not all of it. The open meeting would hopefully detour a coach or AD from being unfair.
And they would avoid the situation by not saying their feelings on the record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP View Post
I never said it should be a mandatory thing or part of a selection process but I would appreciate certain feedback from coaches if done in a proper way. For example, did I show a high level of decisiveness? Did I communicate with participants effectively? Did I maintain professional control during the contest? Was I aggressive or overbearing?
The point I was making that even in your suggestion you still would have a major flaw. All systems have flaws that someone, somewhere is not going to like or respect and that even your concern would have a way around what you were looking for. Which goes back to my original point, no matter what they come up with, someone is going to not be happy. We have to control what we can control and not worry about much else. Often in my experience, people do not accept the obvious. Because even if a coach shared exactly what they thought of you in their rating, people would claim they were not being fair. I know when clinicians tell officials why they are not advancing or why they need to do better, guys/gals get defensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJP View Post
Evaluations regarding my application and understanding of the rules should maybe be left up to our peers.
There is more to what we do than rules and application of rules. We used to have the same kind of feedback from coaches and they took it away because it was clearly was not helpful to anyone. All it did was piss off officials because some coach would complain about some mechanics and the coaches clearly have no idea what our mechanics entail.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 22, 2017, 08:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
Then that is the problem. The officials have it within their power to do the right thing but are not doing it. Can't blame the system when the system isn't used.

Are those ratings sufficiently anonymous so that an official could give an honest rating without fear of retaliation? It would have to be such that the scores would only become available to the officials after a large number were collected and the system closes.
Everyone in SC wants to do away with the peer ratings, including myself. The problem is no alternative solution can gain enough traction.

They're done through Arbiter for all varsity games. We have six categories where we rate each of our partners on a scale of 1-10 (10 is the best). If you rate below an 8 in any category you have to provide a comment (though theoretically you could just put a dash in the comment box and the system would allow you to submit it). The average score and any comments written about an official are made public to officials shortly after the season ends. You cannot see how you were rated by partner, by game, or who wrote the comment–only the season average score and the comments themselves. The average score is multiplied by 2.5 and applied to your overall rating for the following season.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 22, 2017, 09:39am
CJP CJP is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post

There is more to what we do than rules and application of rules.
That is pretty obvious. My comment didn't limit the feedback from our peers to that subject only but take it away from coaches.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 22, 2017, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,198
I think one of the more insane things that goes on is the top 15 vote for officials of your association when your only contact with those other officials is if you are their crew, or at clinics and meetings. Varsity games here are pretty much assigned to a crew instead of random assignments and you dont work with anyone else except maybe one or two other guys outside the crew and whoever you get paired with in tournaments.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frustrated BatteryPowered Basketball 34 Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:10am
Ratings system Terrapins Fan Basketball 2 Sat Mar 16, 2013 02:37pm
State Association Ratings System Scratch85 Basketball 1 Mon Oct 08, 2012 05:13pm
Referee descriptors for ratings system.. zebraman Basketball 8 Mon Apr 11, 2005 04:25pm
Many Frustrated Questions! JimNayzium Football 16 Sun Nov 11, 2001 10:54pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1